Alias cũ của cloud_service_rebuild

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world). The description adds sandbox cost and wallet context, but it does not explain what rebuilding does to the service or what side effects to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the alias relationship and the replacement recommendation before the sandbox note. There is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an alias tool this is reasonably compact and routes the agent to the canonical sibling, but it omits what service_id represents and does not describe rebuild effects. With no output schema and a required parameter lacking description, more context would help.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sandbox parameter is repeated verbatim from the schema rather than adding new meaning, and service_id is not described at all despite being required. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as a compatible alias and points to cloud_service_rebuild, while the name and title make the rebuild purpose inferable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling it aliases, though it never states the rebuild action directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly directs new integrations to use cloud_service_rebuild, which makes the usage context of this alias clear. The implication is that this tool is for legacy compatibility only, but it does not spell out exclusions beyond that.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.